By BONNIE J. GORDONThe Texas populist Jim Hightower once famously said, “The only thing I see in the middle of the road is dead armadillos and a yellow stripe.”
Joking aside, American politics has tended to view centrist politics as the rational norm to which we should strive. I’d like to explore another view.
Remember way back to my first few columns? I introduced Uncle Steve, the zealot for ideas with which we don’t agree. Uncle Steve was an example of how not to talk to political opponents, but his fervor wasn’t really the problem. It was his lack of skill and refusal to listen that made him so difficult to talk to.
I’m going to introduce a new fictional relative, Aunt Kate. Aunt Kate is the polar opposite of Uncle Steve. Whenever a political discussion looms, Aunt Kate will sweetly suggest we talk about something, anything else. “Let’s agree to disagree” are her favorite words of wisdom, although she hasn’t actually expressed an opinion at all.
The reason for this may be that she loves peace and quiet, but it’s more likely to be that she doesn’t have an opinion. Politics are not her thing. Both sides are the same anyway. She’s “somewhere in the middle.”
You and Uncle Steve decide to go out for a beer after a few minutes of these sentiments, so you can figure out how to save the world if you don’t murder each other first.
The two of you have some things in common. You both have strongly held beliefs you are willing to fight for. You believe in your ideas enough to debate them and try to convince others. Isn’t democracy great?
Well, yes. It’s our duty as citizens to care and to decide what we agree with and what we don’t. The 40 percent of citizens who don’t vote could be the deciders of any given election if they just showed up. But first, they would have to pick a side and many people cannot seem to do this.
One reason for this, I postulate, is fear of venturing out of the middle of the road. For the most part, centrism has dominated the political landscape and politicians are exhorted to be “bipartisan” and work together. I’m not against working together, but first, you have to have a set of your own strongly held ideas, or you’ll end up with a solution so watered down that the changes you wanted to see will be consigned to a dusty shelf.
A lot of people are extremely tired of this and it gave us both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in 2016. These politicians are often attacked for being “extreme” but both of them generated a bunch of brand new ideas and we’re still discussing their merits. These ideas had no platform until these outsiders pushed their way onto the political stage. Say what you will about Trump and Sanders, they’re willing to think big and get outside the narrow confines of the middle of the road.
Democracy is not supposed to be about “likability” or deciding who is smack-dab in the middle. It’s supposed to be about ideas and worldviews. It’s about passionately fighting for what you believe is the best political solution and getting other people to see it your way. If you convince enough of them, you get to govern and change things. If thing’s are already great, that’s wonderful. Maintain the status quo. But almost everyone would agree at least some things in our government could use some tweaking if not a complete overhaul.
So that’s what I think polarization has to offer. The ideal outcome is all of us on the same, correct page, but don’t hold your breath. On the flip side, we HAVE come together and made big changes at various times in our history. But it didn’t happen without a lot of struggling, arguing and shouting.
